This study attempted to apply crisis management to the newspaper context. There have been very few studies that have analyzed the newspaper industry this way. The goal ended up being to define what crisis meant in the newspaper context instead of building a new crisis management model for newspapers. Therefore this study ended up being more theoretical than initially planned. It was also necessary to leave some things out, because there were simply too many viewpoints that could’ve been used. The empirical data for this study was gathered from a small sample (three managers at Etelä-Suomen Sanomat and six other newspaper managers). While the empirical data-gathering generated interesting results, the smallness of the sample suggests that more research should be made to validate the findings. The sample also consisted of managers from major daily newspapers from the biggest Finnish metropolitan areas. As the desk research revealed, there are significant differences between newspapers. The findings of this study might not be applicable to smaller newspapers or free papers, even in Finland.
The decision to use the landscape model of crisis management dictated many of the choices made during the research process. For example it led to treat the crisis of newspapers as a time-confined situation. It also forced to separate the internal aspects of the crisis from the external aspects. This proved to be difficult, because both dimensions were constantly mixed together by the managers that participated in the data-gathering process. One example of the problems was that the managers mentioned several internal organizational challenges as prominent threats to newspapers, whereas
the landscape model treats threats simply as external factors. The division of internal and external dimensions in this study is somewhat superficial and might be a little confusing.
Landscape model, like other crisis management models, hasn’t mentioned any crises that were caused by the quality of the product. It was therefore a complete surprise that some of the managers talked about the crisis of journalistic content. The theoretical framework of this study simply didn’t offer any suggestions how to treat that finding. It is evident that to fully understand every aspect of the newspaper crisis, a new crisis management model should be devised. The notion of this so-called crisis of journalism also proved that newspapers aren’t always simply companies that care about profitability. More research would obviously be needed to examine this notion.
Another limitation of this study is that it concentrates on the negative aspects of the current situation. This approach might be considered as being biased, but the decision to concentrate on weaknesses and threats was dictated by the nature of crisis management as a theoretical foundation.
The underlying assumption of crisis management is that crises are caused by weaknesses and threats. This explains why the strengths and opportunities of newspapers were only treated as a side note in this study. This treatment might seem unfair to newspapers, but it was necessary to focus only on the most relevant aspects of the situation.
The crisis of newspapers is often mentioned when the current situation is analyzed, but there isn’t a clear definition for what it actually means. Crisis of newspapers is generally viewed as a financial crisis that is caused by the internet, which is a simplistic view. To better understand the crisis of newspapers, a multi-faceted theoretical framework was devised. As a result of analyzing the current situation of newspapers through the framework, a clearer picture emerged. The crisis of newspapers was seen as a complex, chronic crisis.
The data that was analyzed during the research process suggested that the boundary conditions for a successful newspaper business are shrinking. This is essentially caused by the exodus of readers and advertisers from printed media to digital media. The total circulation of newspapers, consisting of both printed newspaper and online newspaper, is increasing, but the amount of paying customers is
decreasing, because customers aren’t willing to pay for online news. The online advertising market is emerging, but isn’t developing fast enough to cover the losses of print ad sales that were caused by the global recession. This complex situation has forced newspapers to quickly cut costs by increasing cooperation and conducting massive layoffs.
This was later corroborated by several newspaper managers that took part in the study. The shrinking of business conditions is a trend that has been present for some time, and it is the core of the newspaper crisis. One can point out the global financial crisis as a crisis trigger that has caused the current crisis, but this is offers only a partial explanation, because the circulation of newspapers began dropping in the early 90’s. Thus the boundary conditions for a successful newspaper business started shrinking before the recession. It is clear however that the recession has intensified the crisis, which was mentioned by several newspaper managers.
One clarification should be made. The crisis of newspapers isn’t simply caused by external factors.
It is also caused by internal weaknesses. The way newspapers are managing their crisis is causing problems elsewhere. The strategy of intensification during tough times leads to reputational problems. Sanoma for example has devised a strict freelance contract that has met up with resistance and has also been described as unreasonable (Partanen, 2012; Grafia, 2009). There are also other examples of how newspapers have gained notoriety in recent years.
Etelä-Suomen Sanomat for example was found guilty of age discrimination when they fired several experienced journalists during the global recession. These examples explain why the internal landscape of the newspaper industry should be analyzed together with the external landscape. These two spheres together cause the crisis.
Based on the desk research and the empirical data-gathering, the main research question can be answered. Crisis of the newspaper industry is a chronic crisis that first began in the early 90’s when the newspaper industry turned from a mature one into a declining one. The declining circulation, the dwindling number of journalists, the reluctance of online customers to pay for news content and the reshaping of advertising are trends that are causing the boundary conditions of media business to
shrink. They are also trends that newspapers are seemingly unable to change. Because of the successful history and the strong market position that newspapers still have, the crisis remains a chronic one. If none of the trends mentioned above can be changed, the crisis will eventually turn into an acute one.
It is also evident that the crisis of newspapers is nothing like the crises that we see in the news. The crisis of newspapers is not a sudden sensational crisis that will make the headlines. This simple observation led to redefine the notion of crisis. The crisis of newspapers was seen as a complex, chronic crisis with many overlapping causes. It was important to ask how newspaper managers understood the notion of crisis. Newspaper managers seemed to understand crises as sensational crises, which explain their reluctance to admit that newspapers are in a crisis. It also explains why Etelä-Suomen Sanomat is reluctant to adopt crisis management into their strategy. The conclusion drawn from the views held by Finnish newspaper managers is that newspapers understand their current situation, but they don’t fully understand the notion of a crisis. At least they fail to make a distinction between a chronic and an acute crisis. That is a shame, because newspapers could use crisis management models to better manage their situation.
This study attempted to explain the many facets of the newspaper crisis. It offered an answer to the research question, but only served as a first look into a research subject that has been mostly ignored. The next step in applying crisis management into the newspaper context is to build a complete crisis management model that takes into account the unique characteristics of media business. One potentially rewarding research in this regard would be to study what the importance of content in media business means for crisis management. Several newspaper managers thought that it would cause a crisis if the quality of newspapers dropped below a certain level. Crisis management literature hasn’t taken this into account, because it approaches organizational crises from financial and reputational viewpoints. This research could also be widened to cover any other media business that is content-driven.
The aim of future research could be to explain what newspapers can do to manage their crises.
Whereas this study was explanatory in nature, future studies could be normative. The landscape model of crisis management that was used in the theoretical framework of this study could be
further exploited, because this study only applied parts of the model. There are several researches that could be conducted based on the landscape model. One could for example use the landscape model to understand the role of organizational learning in newspapers. Another research topic could be crisis communication in newspapers. A researcher could try to find out how newspapers, or other media organizations, report on their crises.
Media organizations, especially the local ones, are in a unique position where they can try to control the information about themselves. An interesting research question would be: “How openly do media organizations talk about themselves?”.
Another potential research could compare the crisis of newspapers to the crisis of music industry.
Both industries have seen financial decline and both industries tend to blame the internet for their current problems. One research could for example compare the way each industry is managing their crisis. The empirical part of this study was limited to one case study and six newspapers managers from different newspapers. It is obvious that to fully analyze the newspaper industry, a much more extensive sampling should be used. Future research could build upon this study and quantitatively validate the findings
Appendices
Appendix A: Questionnaire in Finnish
1) Miten kuvailisit suomalaisten sanomalehtien nykytilannetta?
2) Monet ovat puhuneet sanomalehtien kriisistä. Onko tämä sinusta todenmukainen kuvaus nykytilanteesta? Miksi?
3) Koska voitaisiin mielestäsi puhua sanomalehtien kriisistä? Mitä kriisi mielestäsi tarkoittaa?
4) Mitkä ovat mielestäsi merkittävimmät uhkat suomalaisille sanomalehdille tänä päivänä?
5) Miten sanomalehdet ovat näihin uhkiin vastanneet?
Appendix B: Questionnaire translated to English
1) How would you describe the current situation of Finnish newspapers?
2) There has been a lot talk about the crisis of newspapers. Do you consider it a truthful description of the current situation? Why?
3) When could we in your opinion talk about a crisis of the newspapers? How would you define a crisis?
4) What do you consider as the most prominent threats to Finnish newspapers currently?
5) How have newspapers responded to these threats?
Appendix C: Theme interview questions in Finnish
Teema 1: Lehden tilanne
1) Miten suomalaisilla sanomalehdillä menee tällä hetkellä?
2) Kuinka sanomalehtien tilanne on muuttunut vuoden 2008 jälkeen?
3) Monet puhuvat sanomalehtien kriisistä. Onko tämä mielestäsi todenmukainen kuvaus nykytilanteesta?
4) Mitä kriisi mielestäsi tarkoittaa? Milloin voidaan puhua yrityksen tai toimialan kriisistä?
5) Miten sanomalehtien haastava tilanne näkyy Etelä-Suomen Sanomien toiminnassa?
Teema 2: Haasteet ja uhkat
6) Millä tavoin Etelä-Suomen Sanomissa pyritään havaitsemaan uhkia ja haasteita?
7) Onko Etelä-Suomen Sanomilla joitakin erityisiä uhkia, jotka poikkeavat sanomalehtialan yleisistä uhkista?
8) Entä onko Etelä-Suomen Sanomilla joitakin erityisiä mahdollisuuksia, joita muilla lehdillä ei kenties ole?
Teema 3: ESS:n kriisivalmius
9) Kuinka sanomalehtenne on vastannut uhkiin, joista aiemmin keskustelimme?
10) Reagoitteko uhkiin jonkin etukäteen laaditun suunnitelman mukaisesti?
11) Onko lehdessänne ylöskirjattua kriisisuunnitelmaa?
12) Entä kriisiryhmää? Ketä siihen kuuluu?
13) Missä asioissa lehtenne on onnistunut uhkien hallitsemisessa hyvin? Miksi?
14) Onko asioita, joita sinä olisit tehnyt eri tavalla?
Appendix D: Theme interview questions translated to English
Theme 1: Current situation
1) How are Finnish newspapers doing at the moment?
2) How has the situation of newspapers changed since 2008?
3) Many are talking about the crisis of newspapers. Do you consider it to be a realistic description of the current situation?
4) What does crisis mean in your opinion? When can we talk about an industrial crisis?
5) How does the challenging situation affect the way Etelä-Suomen Sanomat operates?
Theme 2: Challenges and threats
6) How does Etelä-Suomen Sanomat observe the challenges and threats (posed to them)?
7) Does Etelä-Suomen Sanomat have any specific threats that differ from the general threats to the newspaper industry?
8) Additionally, does Etelä-Suomen Sanomat have any specific opportunities that other newspapers might not have?
Theme 3: The crisis-preparedness of Etelä-Suomen Sanomat
9) How has your newspaper responded to those threats that we talked about earlier?
10) Did you react according to some plans?
11) Does your newspaper have crisis management plans that have been written down?
12) What about a crisis management team? Who are on it?
13) In what ways has your newspaper management its threats especially well? Why?
14) Are there things that you would’ve done differently?
REFERENCES
Books and articlesAguilera, D. 1990. Crisis intervention: Theory and methodology. Mosby: Philadelphia.
Ansoff, H. 1984. Implanting Strategic Management. Prentice Hall International: Hemel Hempstead.
Baron, G. 2003. Now is Too Late. Survival in an Era of Instant News. Financial Times Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Barton, L. 2001. Crisis in organizations II. College Divisions South-Western: Cincinnati.
Barton, L. & Hardigree, D. 1995. Risk and crisis management in facilities: emerging paradigms in assessing critical incidents. Facilities 13(9-10), 11-14.
Beck, U. 1992. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. Sage: London.
Becker, L. & Schönbach, K. 1999. Audience Response to Media Diversification. Lawrence Erlbaum: Mahwah, N.J.
Becker, L., Vlad, T., Tucker, M. & Pelton, R. 2006. 2005 Enrollment Report: Enrollment growth continues but at a reduced rate. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator 61(3), 297-327.
Boin, A., Kofman-Bos, C. & Overdijk, W. 2004. Crisis Simulations: Exploring Tomorrow’s Vulnerabilities and Threats. Simulation Gaming 35, 378-393.
Boin, A., ‘t Hart, P., Stern, E. & Sundelius, B. 2005. The Politics of Crisis Management. Cambridge University Press: New York.
Boin, A. 2006. Organizations and Crisis: The Emergence of a Research Paradigm, in Smith, D. &
Elliott, D. (Eds.) Key Readings in Crisis Management. Routledge: New York, 84-96.
Briggs, A. & Burke, P. 2002. A Social History of the Media: From Gutenberg to the Internet. Polity Press: Cambridge.
Buchanan, M. 2000. Ubiquity: Why catastrophes happen. Three Rivers Press: New York.
Chyi, H. & Yang, M. 2009. Is Online News an Inferior Good? Examining the Economic Nature of Online News Among Users. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 86(3), 594-612.
Cilliers, P. 1998. Complexity and postmodernism: Understanding complex systems. Routledge:
London.
Conboy, M. 2004. Journalism: A critical history. Sage: London.
Coombs, T. 1999. Ongoing Crisis Communication: Planning, Managing, and Responding. SAGE Publications: Los Angeles.
Coombs, T. 2007. Ongoing Crisis Communication: Planning, Managing, and Responding (2nd Edition). SAGE Publications: Los Angeles.
Coombs, T. 2009. Conceptualizing crisis communication, in Heath, R. & O’Hair, H. (Eds.), Handbook of crisis and risk communication. Routledge: New York, 100-119.
Coombs, T. 2012. Parameters for Crisis Communicatio n, in Coombs, T. & Holladay, S. (Eds.), The Handbook of Crisis Communication. Wiley-Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 17-53.
Crandall, W., Parnell, J. & Spillan J. 2010. Crisis Management in the New Strategy Landscape.
SAGE Publications, Inc: Thousand Oaks, California.
Crumley B. 1990. Fizzz went the crisis. International Management 45(3), 52-53.
Dutton, J. 1986. The Processing of Crisis and Non-Crisis Strategic Issues. Journal of Management Studies 25(5), 501-517.
Dutton, J. & Jackson, S. 1987. Categorizing Strategic Issues: Links to Organizational Action, in Academy of Management Review 12(1), 76-90.
Eskola, J. & Suoranta, J. 1998. Johdatus laadulliseen tutkimukseen. Vastapaino: Tampere.
Fink, S. 1996. Crisis management: Planning for the inevitable. American Management Association:
New York.
Fritz, C. 1961. Disasters, in Merton, R. & Nisbet, R. (eds.) Contemporary Social Problems.
Harcourt: New York, 651-694.
Gerzema, J. & Lebar, E. 2008. The Brand Bubble. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA.
Giddens, A. 1990. Consequences of Modernity. Polity Press: Cambridge.
Glasser, B. 1999. The Culture of Fear: Why Americans are Afraid of the Wrong Things. Basic Books: New York.
Gregory, A. 2005. Communication dimensions of the UK foot and mouth disease crisis 2001, in Journal of Public Affairs 5, 312-328.
Gustafsson, K. 2005. Reklamens makt over medierna. SNS Förlag: Stockholm.
Habermas, J. 1975. Legitimation Crisis. Beacon Press: Boston.
Harcup, T. 2004. Journalism: Principles and practice. Sage: London.
Hardt, H. & Brennen, B. 1995. Newsworkers. Towards a History of the Rank and File. University of Minnesota Press: Minneapolis.
Hermann, C. 1963. Some Consequences of Crisis Which Limit the Viability of Organizations, in Administrative Science Quarterly 8, 61–82.
Herring, E. 1995. Danger and Opportunity. Explaining international crisis outcomes. Manchester University Press: UK.
Hewitt, K. 1983. Interpretations of Calamity: From the Viewpoint of Human Ecology. Allen and Unwin: London.
Hirsjärvi, S. & Hurme, H. 2000. Tutkimushaastattelu. Teemahaastattelun teoria ja käytäntö.
Yliopistopaino: Helsinki.
Huhtala, H. & Hakala, S. 2007. Kriisi ja viestintä. Yhteiskunnallisten kriisien johtaminen julkisuudessa. Gaudeamus: Helsinki.
Hujanen, E. 2007. Lukijankunnan rajamailla – Sanomalehden muuttuvat merkitykset arjessa.
Jyväskylä University Printing House: Jyväskylä.
Jaques, T. 2007. Issue management and crisis management: An integrated, non-linear, relational construct, in Public Relations Review 33(2), 147-157.
Jaques, T. 2009. Issue management as a post-crisis discipline: identifying and responding to issue impacts beyond the crisis. Journal of Public Affairs 9(1), 35-44.
Jones T. 1988. Ethical Theory and Business Decision Making. Pacific Northwest Executive 4(4), 2-4.
Kaiser, U. & Kongsted, H. 2005. Do Magazines’ “Companion Websites” Cannibalize the Demand for the Print Version? ZEW Discussion Paper No. 05-49, Mannheim.
Keeble, R. 2001. Ethics for journalists. Routledge: London.
Keeble, R. 2004. National and local newspaper trends and the new crisis of trust. What new crisis?
Journal of Communication Management 9(3), 223-232.
Keevey, R., Sattin, D. & Hale, T. 2009. The Newspaper Crisis. Executive summary. Princeton University. Policy Research Institute for the Region: Princeton, NJ.
Kets de Vries, M. & Miller, D. 1984. The neurotic organization: Diagnosing and changing counterproductive styles of management. Jossey Bass: San Francisco.
Kets de Vries, M. & Miller, D. 1988. Unstable at the top: Inside the troubled organization. New American Library: New York.
Kim, Y., Cha, H. & Kim J. 2008. Developing a Crisis Management Index: Applications in South Korea, in Journal of Public Relations Research 20: 328-355.
Kolari, E. 2011. Unelma-ammatin kuolema – nuoren journalistin kohtuulliset odotukset, in Matikainen, J. (Ed.) Muuttuvat mediat – haasteelliset sukupolvet. Infor: Helsinki, 50-69.
Kovoor-Misra, S. 2009. Understanding organizational identity during crisis and change. A threat/opportunity framework, in Journal of Organizational Change Management 22(5), 494-510 Kovoor-Misra, S. & Nathan, M. 2000. The optimal time for learning from crises, in Review of Business 21(3), 31-36.
Kreps, G. 1984. Sociological Inquiry and Disaster Research, in Annual Review of Sociology 10, 309-330.
Kunelius, R. 2003. Viestinnän vallassa. WSOY: Helsinki.
Küng, L., Leandros, N., Picard, R. Schroeder, R. & van der Wurff, R. 2008. The impact of the internet on media organization strategies and structures, in Küng, L., Picard, R. & Towse, R (Eds.).
The Internet and the Mass Media. SAGE: Thousand Oaks, California, 125-148.
Lagadec, P. 1982. Major technological risk: An assessment of industrial crises. Pergamon Press:
New York.
Levinthal, B. & March, J. 1993. The Myopia of Learning. Strategic Management Journal 14, 95-112.
Littlejohn, R. 1983. Crisis management: a team approach. AMA Publications: New York.
Marion, R. 2008. Complexity theory for organizations and organizational leadership, in Uhl-Bien, M. & Marion, R. (Eds.) Complexity Leadership, Part 1. IAP-Information Age Publishing, Inc.:
Charlotte, North Carolina.
Marshall, C. & Rossman, G. 2011. Designing Qualitative Research. Fifth Edition. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE.
Mason, J. 1996. Qualitative Researching. SAGE: London.
Meyer, P. 2004. The Vanishing Newspaper. University of Missouri Press: Columbia.
Meyers, G. 1986. When it hits the fan: Managing the nine crises of business. Mentor: New York.
Miller, D. & Friesen, P. 1978. Archetypes of strategy formulation, in Management Science 24, 921-933.
Miller, D. & Friesen, P. 1984. Organizations: A quantum view. Prentice Hall: New Jersey.
Miller, D. 2006. Organizational pathology and industrial crisis, in Smith, D. & Elliott, D. (Eds.) Key Readings in Crisis Management. Routledge: New York, 75-83.
Mintzerg, H. 1984. Power and organization life cycles. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 207-224.
Mitroff, I. & Anagnon, G. 2001. Managing Crises Before They Happen. Amacom: New York.
Mitroff, I., Pauchant, T. & Shrivastava, P. 2006. The structure of man-made organizational crises:
Conceptual and empirical issues in the development of a general theory of crisis management, in
Conceptual and empirical issues in the development of a general theory of crisis management, in